Morgan v. Edward Rose of Indiana, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

BRIONE O. MORGAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:24-CV-148-HAB-ALT ) EDWARD ROSE OF INDIANA, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court for an Order on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which the Magistrate Judge sua sponte recommends that the case be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 51). That R&R was filed on June 30, 2025. The parties were advised of the 14-day objection period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). That deadline has passed without any objections filed by the parties. Plaintiff Brione O. Morgan filed his original complaint in state court, claiming race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (ECF No. 2). It was removed to this Court on April 10, 2024. (ECF No. 1). On April 15, 2025, Morgan’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, citing Morgan’s repeated failure to communicate. (ECF No. 40). The Court set a hearing on the motion to withdraw; Morgan failed to attend. (ECF Nos. 41, 43). The Court subsequently set two show-cause hearings, and Morgan was explicitly warned that involuntary dismissal of his claims was a potential consequence of his nonappearance at each. (ECF Nos. 43-50). He did not attend either hearing. (ECF Nos. 46, 50). “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). As recounted above, the parties have not objected to the recommended disposition of the case. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge engaged in a thorough discussion of the relevant law, and the Court finds that the R&R is not clearly erroneous

and is amply supported by the record. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of the case. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 51) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Morgan’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) and 41(b) and the Court’s inherent power to manage its own affairs as a result of Morgan’s failure to appear as ordered or to otherwise prosecute his case. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment against Morgan and in favor of Defendants.

SO ORDERED on October 1, 2025. s/ Holly A. Brady__________________________ CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT